Dismissed

Natarajan v. Indian Resurgence Arc Private Limited

DRT16 Feb 2023SA/449/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Debts Recovery Tribunal III, Chennai, the Applicant contested a Sale Notice based on disputed claims and a pending private treaty. The Tribunal dismissed the application as the Respondent intended to withdraw the notice, but granted liberty to proceed further if the Applicant failed to conclude negotiations by a specified date.

What did the court decide?

Sale Notice withdrawn; Liberty to respondent to proceed further if applicants fail to conclude negotiations by 28.02.2023.

Natarajan versus Indian Resurgence Arc Private Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

¶2

S.A. 449 of 2022 16.02.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶6

SARFAESI APPLICATION No. 449 of 2022

¶7

Mr.P.Natarajan S/o Mr.P.V.Purushothaman New Door No.2/280, Spring Field Salai Uthandi Chennai – 600 119 ….Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Authorised Officer

¶10

M/s.India Resurgance ARC Private Limited The Executive Zone, Shakthi Towers – 1 No.766, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002

¶11

Also at M/s.India Resurgance ARC Private Limited Third Floor, Piramal Tower Peninsula Corporate Park Ganpatarao Kadam Marg Lower Parel Mumbai – 400 013 ….Respondent

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Anil Relwani & T.S.Rajeevgandhi Counsel for Respondent : Ld. Senior counsel Sh. Om Prakash for Sh. M.Arunachalam

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 13.10.2022 issued by respondent scheduling sale to 07.11.2022, fixing the reserve price of the property at Rs.9,26,50,000/-.

¶16

¶17

S.A. 449 of 2022 16.02.2023

¶18

Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant and Ld. Senior counsel, Sh. Om Prakash for respondent institution. Ld. Senior counsel for respondent submitted that applicant had violated their own undertaking of payment of Rs.1 crore before this Tribunal and established their default even after approaching this Tribunal. The purported private treaty which is challenged in the present SA has not fructified owing to this litigation and that respondent has not proceeded further with the same. Ld. Senior counsel further submitted that it can be the order of the Court to set aside the said notice, which is now under challenge with liberty to the respondent to proceed further in accordance to law.

¶19

Whereas Ld. Counsel for applicant submitted that notwithstanding their contentions and payments thus far made, it would be their endeavour to negotiate with respondent for an amicable settlement and in any case not later than 31.03.2023. Ld. Counsel submitted that applicants are disputing the claims made and also state that the statement of accounts furnished are not clarifying the contentions made on behalf of applicant and that the respondent is only evasive in their replies. However, Ld. Counsel sought time till 31.03.2023 for any negotiated settlement, for which Ld. Senior Counsel has seriously objected to suggesting that it would be open for applicant to approach respondent institution at any time but cannot insist for any restraint order of not proceeding further under the Act for recovery.

¶20

Submitting so, both parties prayed for an appropriate order.

¶21

Both parties also conceded that no sale has taken place pursuant to the impugned private treaty sale letter issued by the respondents.

¶22

¶23

S.A. 449 of 2022 16.02.2023

¶24

In the circumstances, as respondent intends to withdraw the impugned sale letter, with a liberty to proceed further afresh for recovery of their dues, there is nothing else to be adjudicated in the present SA and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶25

Accordingly, this SA stands dismissed, however without costs. Interim order, if any granted and subsisting till this day stands vacated and all other IAs, if any pending stand closed. Liberty be with respondent institution to proceed further in accordance to law, if the applicants do not approach them and enter into concluded negotiations by or before 28.02.2023.

¶26

With the above directions, this SA stands disposed.

¶27

A copy of the order be communicated to the parties concerned as per extant guidelines.

¶28

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 16^th day of February, 2023)

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Natarajan v. Indian Resurgence Arc Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Natarajan v. Indian Resurgence Arc Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Shailendra Kumar Sharma versus Om Kara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

G Sathishkumar versus Idbi Bank

M s Rida Estates Private Limited versus Icici Bank Limited

Mrs Suba Ravikumar versus Axis Bank

Mr T N Satyanarayana S o Thillai Natarajan M S Satya Forgings and Agencies versus Canara Bank

M S Brright Enterprises versus Indian Bank